Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on March 18, 2021, 09:28:26 AM »
I have just made a validation of the algorithm used in Etymology Game. The results are not particularly impressive:
> I meant that on the level of morphemes раз- has to be always раз -/роз
> (never рас-/рос-). On that level it is better if affixes remain un-/change/-able
I did understand you. I just think if you want to deprive Russian a prefix it would be better to leave them the more phonetic one. Russians often pronounce раз- as рас- even before voiced consonants. I have never thought about it (I am not a professional) but quick analysis makes me think it depends on the speed of speech, emphasis, and distinction. I also believe that pupils do write рас- instead of раз- erroneously but never vice versa. Though if there is only one prefix it will not be a problem indeed and let it be раз-.
> (root is another story) and there have to be strict rules.
And by the way the roots do not have the rules. They are all taught as exceptions (and there are not so many teachers who try to explain why and just say “memorize that”).
> So, voiceless (consonant) sound after  раз- will made/change z into s (no matter one
> wants it or not).
> There are mistakes in English and Russian languages. They have to be addressed.
I believe you shall not repeat the error of another reformer – Noah Webster – who’s reforms look nonsystematic and incomplete. So you probably need to do something to без-/бес-, воз-/вос, из-/ис-, вз-/вс-, низ-/нис-, чрез-(через-)/чрес-(черес-) pairs too.
> It has to be раз- for all words!!! (always)
> The logic of "рас-" is very bad.
It is very hard if not impossible to pronounce an unvoiced consonant after a voiced one. You can really make them to write раз+<unvoiced the rest> but they will still pronounce it as рас-<…>.
> Phonetic writing is good but not enough. One needs to go up.
The history tells the opposite – it appeared to be pretty good for the American English to try to become some more phonetic. By the way, is Guinness localized in the US? Is it the drought or draft stout there?

 * For someone Silent e (Silent (soft) vowel/syllable) may resemble Zero;

 * Apostrophe ' (1. noun, omitted vowel/syllable)

 * Let Reduced sounds in a word be in the Even syllables


    letter e be [ə], letter i be [ɪ] (, and letter u be [ʊ]);

 * For vowel sounds in Odd syllables one may take different approaches;

 *  ...


 * - syllable;
 '  - Silent syllable

 * * * * * ... - Syllables in odd positions (of a word)
 1    3    5

* * * * * ... - Syllables in even positions (of a word)
   2    4

1 syllable word ( + a Silent syllable):

*  - a is not Reduced (a is the 1st)

' * - a is Reduced (a is the 2nd)

2 syllable word ( + a Silent syllable):

* *  - a is not Reduced (the 1st), b is Reduced (the 2nd)
a b

' * * - a is Reduced (the 2nd syllable), b is not Reduced (the 3rd syllable)
  a b

* ' * - the 2nd is Reduced (not a (the 1st) and not b (the 3rd))
a   b

3 syllable word ( + a Silent syllable):

* * * - b is Reduced
a b c

' * * * - a and c are Reduced
  a b c

' * ' * * - a and b are Reduced
  a   b c




the [ði:]; 'the [ðə]; a [eɪ]; 'a [ə]; 'an [ən]; ...



(    x [ks]  -  xe = x' [gz]    ; there are other times when x = silent k + [ʃ]; x = silent g + [z] (, ... ?) )

g [g]   -  ge = g' [dʒ]

c [k]   -  ce = c' [tʃ]

s        -  se = s' [ʃ]

z        -  ze = z' [ʒ]

' = Silent e (soft)

/now g', c', s', z' have sense as syllables and they are counted as such (or simply just ' is counted as a vowel/syllable)/

Hi, Rock100,

Let's start with hi'ut'el.

The word is hotel.

I could have written hout'el but for me [əu] is easier than [ou]. So I say [əu].

ho- [o/əu] is a leveled syllable and -tel [tel] is the stressed one.



g, k/c, h  -  g' [dʒ], c' [tʃ], :
s, z          -  s' [ʃ], z' [ʒ]


Russian щ  -  [ʃ(t)ʃ]    =  [ʃ + almost missed t + ʃ] ~ [ʃtʃ]
                                 /ʃ +t + ʃ = ʃ + [tʃ] (ч)/
No magic in Russian. "t"(/"d") is often missed in English words/speech because is/are hard to pronounce (even in "my language").

don'(t), of(t)en, ...

Russian ш is [ʃ].




1. (relatively) front - back /for vowels/


 g' /dz' [dʒ] - g   [g]
                                     /for consonants/
 c'/ts'   [tʃ]  - c/k [k]

2. (relatively) up - down /for consonants/   

 s' [ʃ] - s;

 z' [ʒ] - z;


Consciousness works not in absolute values but relative.



>         [g] g - g' [dʒ]  /"hard" - "soft"/ (g' = dz')
>                  - c' [tʃ]                           (c' = ts')
You might probably want to have a look at my thread “On soft consonants in English” on this forum. I tried to get a free professional consultation on the issue but most likely due to the professional solidarity experts here provided me with so vague and diffuse comments that I have no doubt they want me to pay to a professional speech therapist. Though I do not speak English I am a kind of a real expert in soft consonants and I believe your understanding of the subject is probably wrong. Softness is the same (not a different) sound but pronounced a different way. From my point of view, the way is to raise your tongue while starting the consonant. You may refer yourself to the Webster’s pronunciation of “piss” and “piece”, for example. For a trained ear the Ps in these words are different because the P in the “piece” is started from the position for the long E sound. You might also want to analyze the saved wav files of Webster’s pronunciation of similar words (beam/bim, shit/sheet, bitch/beach, etc.) with your favorite digital signals processing software to double-check it. But probably the Webster’s has an accent though.
> I think the Russian letters are:
> s'
> ш
There is the exactly one exception in Russian, as I believe. But first, you incorrect here twice. The hard/soft S’es are as in the words sick/seek (if you are lucky you will hear the S’es difference in Webster’s again) and there are no SH at all. And as far as the Russian soft SH sound it is probably so important or different that Russians differentiate it completely and give it the special name and its own letter щ (compare ш/щ). So, from the point of view of a native Russian speaker (no exceptions) all native English speakers pronounce the “she” word as щи, not a ши. This is absolutely clear and it does not depend upon an accent (American, British, Australian, etc.).
> hi'ut'el;
I cannot get the real English word behind this but my perverted mind keeps reading it as huitel (and you definitely do not want to have an international trademark or something like this).
      [a, æ] a - a' [ɒ]    (round a)

       [e, ɛ] e - e' [ə, ɜ] /unstressed - stressed/ (if that is too complicated then)
          [e] e - e' [ɛ]

               i  -  i' [ə]    /soft - hard/

               u - u' [ʌ]    /round - unround/
               o - o' [ɔ]    (broad o)

               s - s' [ʃ]     /"hard" - "soft"/
               z - z' [ʒ]    /"hard" - "soft"/
         [g] g - g' [dʒ]  /"hard" - "soft"/ (g' = dz')
         [k] c - c' [tʃ]    /"hard" - "soft"/ (c' = ts')
and   '   stress sign (before the vowel or syllable, if needed)   
and   :   long sign
and   j   soft sign


Most common words in English

According to The Reading Teacher's Book of Lists, the first 25 words in the OEC make up about one-third of all printed material in English, and the first 100 words make up about half of all written English.

So mastering (learning the spelling of)

- the first few hundred most common words;

- the words with clear logic/rules;

- the words (terms) used in one's profession

should be enough.






ime'rg'i'nsy rum;








I think the Russian letters are:

s', z', g'/dz', c'/ts', ts, dz
ш, ж,   -    ,   ч   ,  ц,  -

Hi, panini,

"... unless this is a transcription of your personal pronunciation. ..."

Yes, this is a transcription of my personal pronunciation or the way I hear the words. Thank you!


Married... with Children (1987–1997)
S8, E26, "Kelly Knows Something", 11:00 min.

Al Bundy  : Bud, now listen, you've helped Kelly with her schoolwork. Tell me, is she capable of, you know, anything?

Bud Bundy: Oh, sure. You just gotta work within her limitations. Look, Kelly's brain... Kelly's brain... (Bud moves his hands closer and closer)... can hold anything. You just gotta make sure of two things before you start. One, that it's totally empty.

Al Bundy  : Well, we know that.


Bud Bundy: And two, you gotta feed her information slowly. A drop at a time until she's full.

Al Bundy  : Full?

Bud Bundy: Oh, yeah. Kelly's brain can actually get full. Then you gotta be really careful... because each new fact after that will totally replace an old one. That's how come she forgot to put on a blouse the day she took driver's test.

Al Bundy  : No wonder why her license expires every 60 days.


- everyone has one's limitations;

- each new fact after that will totally replace an old one.


after a certain number of memorized words one needs rules and/or/of phonetic spelling.

Have a nice day.
I grant that it is challenging even for me as a phonologist to get IPA letters into texts, but let's ask, why are you doing this? Why would you want to provide an IPA re-writing of written English texts? IPA is about pronunciation: your quasi-transcription of English is wrong, unless this is a transcription of your personal pronunciation. Written standards provide people with one or two fixed targets to learn, whereas transcribed English is unlearnable, since there are billions of possible transcriptions (given the billions of speakers).

You don't really need a transcription except if you are trying to convey information about pronunciation. So perhaps you might want a transcription in case you want to know how to pronounce "hamamelidanthemum", which in fact has a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation, enshrined in the phonological literature (the key is to know that it's not an arbitrary multi-syllabic string, is a compound of "hamamelus" and "anthemum"). What you really need is a collection of actual recordings, and the better online dictionaries now provide that – including both US and UK versions. The problem with Wiktionary is simply that there is no real vetting of the misinformation that they promulgate, so you can't be sure that e.g. a given word was produced by an actual speaker. Don't bother with transcription, just provide a link to an authoritative RP pronunciation, if you want to provide an indication of pronunciation.

If you don't have a purpose, you can't decide if your decisions are good or bad, just as you can't decide if smashing a window is good or bad in the abstract.

Outside of the box / Re: a, e, i, i', u, u', o; ... s - s', ... , z - z'; j - soft sign
« Last post by Daniel on February 27, 2021, 03:28:08 AM »
Turkish schwa is i without the dot.
Actually, that's not accurate. Turkish <ı> (dotless i) is a high vowel but in the center of the mouth, so it is pronounced higher than schwa which is a central mid vowel. (There's no schwa in Turkish.) This is a good illustration of why using a standard like the IPA is useful.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with exploring these things for yourself, but it won't be clearer to others if you make up a new system rather than learning how others have been doing it for years.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10